US Journalist fired over cancel culture story

[melodramocracy]

That's just literally not happening. You're making it up.

That absolutely has happened. There are examples in prior threads here, even.

[Elegiac]

Kinda amused by people getting their panties in a twist over "cancel culture" when the only people who have actually been 'cancelled' and *didn't* deserve it were the Dixie Chicks.

[melodramocracy]

That's social. Nobody took money away from them. There were no fines. Their employer simply chose to end their business relationship moving forward. That's social consequence.

Even if you want to argue that it is "financial", still not "censorship" and still not something anyone should be making complaints about. Yes, racists can be fired if their employer decides they don't want to employ a racist. This is not a surprising shift in society, this is how it's been, for literally decades.

This is a dishonest argument. The social response to the speech absolutely led to a financial impact.

Speech is nothing more than words unless those words directly motivate someone else to take action. The push to cause financial impact on the person who said the bad thing, is absolutely an action. The two (speech and consequence) are not similar at all.

As I stated earlier anyhow, freedom isn't a freedom at all if there are consequences to exercising it. People need to simply abandon the idea of freedom of speech existing outside the narrow legal definition of it.

[Endus]

That absolutely has happened. There are examples in prior threads here, even.

The "collectively losing their shit" is the part that is not happening.

That the "OK" symbol is being used by white supremacists as a white power symbol is simply fact.

[melodramocracy]

Kinda amused by people getting their panties in a twist over "cancel culture" when the only people who have actually been 'cancelled' and *didn't* deserve it were the Dixie Chicks.

I'm sure plenty of people thought they deserved it. You just happen to disagree with their viewpoint.

No one's really getting their panties in a twist anyhow, aside from the folks who refuse to believe it exists in the first place.

[Endus]

This is a dishonest argument. The social response to the speech absolutely led to a financial impact.

That's not relevant to the point I was making in any way. That's flatly not a counter-argument.

Yes, social opprobrium can have financial consequences. This is what free association looks like; people tend to choose not to associate with people who behave egregiously in public. That's normal, free conduct.

Speech is nothing more than words unless those words directly motivate someone else to take action. The push to cause financial impact on the person who said the bad thing, is absolutely an action. The two (speech and consequence) are not similar at all.

Oh, bullshit.

If you're going to argue that social opprobrium has financial impacts, you have to acknowledge that speech can as well, given that libel and slander (both forms of "speech") have identifiable and quantifiable fiscal harms associated with them, which are assessed in basically every suit involving such.

You've manufactured an irrelevant goalpost, and you're not even being consistent in applying it.

As I stated earlier anyhow, freedom isn't a freedom at all if there are consequences to exercising it.

That's a statement that's just obviously, blatantly wrong, the moment you acknowledge that other people exist and are also "free". If I'm not "free" to respond to your speech, because that might create "consequences" for you, then freedom of speech does not exist in the first place. You're talking about a society framed around defending some elite few against the potential free expressions of the rest.

[Elegiac]

As I stated earlier anyhow, freedom isn't a freedom at all if there are consequences to exercising it. People need to simply abandon the idea of freedom of speech existing outside the narrow legal definition of it.

*takes a long drag*

Y'all realise that America's current definition of "freedom of speech" is the exception even in Western countries and actually doesn't predate living memory, right?

[melodramocracy]

Yes, social opprobrium can have financial consequences. This is what free association looks like; people tend to choose not to associate with people who behave egregiously in public. That's normal, free conduct.

Gathering enough complaints about someone who's speech you don't like goes far above dis-association. If you want to talk about absurd arguments, start here.

Oh, bullshit.

If you're going to argue that social opprobrium has financial impacts, you have to acknowledge that speech can as well, given that libel and slander (both forms of "speech") have identifiable and quantifiable fiscal harms associated with them, which are assessed in basically every suit involving such.

You've manufactured an irrelevant goalpost, and you're not even being consistent in applying it.

And libel / slander have very clear LEGAL definitions. See where this is going?

That's a statement that's just obviously, blatantly wrong, the moment you acknowledge that other people exist and are also "free". If I'm not "free" to respond to your speech, because that might create "consequences" for you, then freedom of speech does not exist in the first place. You're talking about a society framed around defending some elite few against the potential free expressions of the rest.

If your response to my speech is an action that may financially impact me, I'm not going to make the statement. Thus, I don't actually have freedom of speech. It really is that simple.

- - - Updated - - -

*takes a long drag*

Y'all realise that America's current definition of "freedom of speech" is the exception even in Western countries and actually doesn't predate living memory, right?

Unless you're over 200 years old, it predates you.

[Ooid]

If you're making a racist joke, it's because you're racist.

This is the most galaxy-brained take I've ever seen on this website.

[Endus]

Gathering enough complaints about someone who's speech you don't like goes far above dis-association. If you want to talk about absurd arguments, start here.

Where?

This barely parses as a sentence. Are you seriously arguing that pointing out someone said terrible things is "bad"?

And libel / slander have very clear LEGAL definitions. See where this is going?

Honestly, no. You keep moving goalposts, so it's not possible to "see where this is going". You keep saying it's going to one place, I point out that it's misleading, and you move them. Like you're doing here. Where somehow, now, it matters that those are legal terms, even though you never explained how that matters to anything you said before (and it really doesn't change anything meaningful).

If your response to my speech is an action that may financially impact me, I'm not going to make the statement. Thus, I don't actually have freedom of speech. It really is that simple.

That's not what freedom of speech means, no. You don't get to redefine facts, and in particular you don't get to claim that your right to free speech aggressively silences every single other voice in the nation, denying them that same "freedom". Because that's what you're arguing, here.

That you get "free speech", but that you're the only person who gets that privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the most galaxy-brained take I've ever seen on this website.

"You'd have to be racist to think something racist is funny" isn't exactly a deep or difficult thing to understand.

[Elegiac]

Unless you're over 200 years old, it predates you.

Lol. You honestly think the First Amendment was interpreted the same way for 200 years?

Cute, but no. SCOTUS hadn't actually ruled on any law regarding speech until the 20th century.

[melodramocracy]

Lol. You honestly think the First Amendment was interpreted the same way for 200 years?

Cute, but no. SCOTUS hadn't actually ruled on any law regarding speech until the 20th century.

It's fairly clear in what it states. It's had the narrow scope it has now, that entire time.

[Methodd]

"You'd have to be racist to think something racist is funny" isn't exactly a deep or difficult thing to understand.

Your opinion is not fact my dude. Please stick to reality and not something that's subjective as morality to declare standards.

[melodramocracy]

Where?

This barely parses as a sentence. Are you seriously arguing that pointing out someone said terrible things is "bad"?


Honestly, no. You keep moving goalposts, so it's not possible to "see where this is going". You keep saying it's going to one place, I point out that it's misleading, and you move them. Like you're doing here. Where somehow, now, it matters that those are legal terms, even though you never explained how that matters to anything you said before (and it really doesn't change anything meaningful).



That's not what freedom of speech means, no. You don't get to redefine facts, and in particular you don't get to claim that your right to free speech aggressively silences every single other voice in the nation, denying them that same "freedom". Because that's what you're arguing, here.

That you get "free speech", but that you're the only person who gets that privilege.

There's no goalposts being moved, my stance is quite clear. You're missing the entire point that speech and actions are 2 very different things. And that action against a speech in the public forum is more than just 'free association'.

Person A says "I don't like Asian people"

Person B then can say "I choose to ignore you because what you say offends me"

or

"I choose to go out of my way to let your employer know how awful your stance is, and hopefully I can get enough other people to do likewise, so that voicing your opinion causes you financial disturbance"

You seem to think that both of these reactions are equivalent, and that neither one is an action.

[Endus]

There's no goalposts being moved, my stance is quite clear. You're missing the entire point that speech and actions are 2 very different things. And that action against a speech in the public forum is more than just 'free association'.

This is a distinction that does not exist.

Speech is itself an action.

Person A says "I don't like Asian people"

Person B then can say "I choose to ignore you because what you say offends me"

or

"I choose to go out of my way to let your employer know how awful your stance is, and hopefully I can get enough other people to do likewise, so that voicing your opinion causes you financial disturbance"

You seem to think that both of these reactions are equivalent, and that neither one is an action.

The latter position is speech. Nothing more. Person B is doing nothing but expressing their free opinion.

You're being completely inconsistent and deliberately misusing terminology.

[Elegiac]

It's fairly clear in what it states. It's had the narrow scope it has now, that entire time.

Which is why the Alien and Sedition Acts weren't declared unconstitutional until the 1960s despite having been enforced on multiple occasions prior.

Sure, Jan.

- - - Updated - - -

Your opinion is not fact my dude. Please stick to reality and not something that's subjective as morality to declare standards.

No, he's entirely correct.

The problem is that people seem to think acknowledging that they might have internalised racism is an admission they're a terrible person because...surprise surprise...society and the system are never at fault. It's just bad people. =)))))))

People who find offensive humour funny do so because they either agree with it or aren't thinking enough about it to come to terms with their internalised prejudices.

If you aren't asking yourself "at who's expense is the joke", you fall into the latter category. It's pretty clear cut.

[melodramocracy]

The latter position is speech.

It isn't at all. We'll just agree to disagree.

[Endus]

It isn't at all. We'll just agree to disagree.

No. We won't. You're stating things that are flatly incorrect.

You can refuse to change your tune when confronted with the facts, and insist on continuing to be wrong, but that's not "agreeing to disagree". We're not having a difference of opinion, here. You're objectively wrong. Your hypothetical Person B did nothing but engage in protected free speech.

[Elegiac]

No. We won't. You're stating things that are flatly incorrect.

You can refuse to change your tune when confronted with the facts, and insist on continuing to be wrong, but that's not "agreeing to disagree". We're not having a difference of opinion, here. You're objectively wrong. Your hypothetical Person B did nothing but engage in protected free speech.

I would also like to submit for the academy's consideration that it's entirely possible to reconcile the concepts of free speech and deplatforming using the tolerance paradox.

[Flarelaine]

This is a blatant lie, the person digging through tens of thousands of posts and pictures on social media to find the slightest incriminating thing dug that hole. No one else gave a shit.

This is laughably untrue. The existence of any offensive social media posts is the sole responsibility of whoever posted them.

- - - Updated - - -

Because social media and far higher levels of communication have amplified this behavior.

I disagree about higher levels of communication. We have higher volume, but lower levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Try looking it up, there are dozens of news story about it.

I can probably find that number about Bigfoot as well.